Here is one reason the dogmatic science of evolution is rejected and questioned by many: Honesty. Every now and then we get a really honest scientist who will reveal the truth about evolution. Here is one of them: Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world and is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he doesn't consider himself an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with hundreds, did a very honest and courageous thing by signing “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Here is an excerpt from a very telling article with Dr. Tour's quotes (article linked at the bottom): "… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me... I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you... Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science - with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public - because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said - I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” ... I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?” ...." -- Dr. James Tour Dear Eugenie Scott, Before trying to outlaw questioning of neo-Darwinism, why not go see Dr. Tour and all others who don't understand it, and explain how the most complex thing in the known universe, the human brain, was made by "copying errors". There IS a controversy. :) www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/
Ummmm, "Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. " -- Dr. James Tour (from his own website) www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/ Also, with a background in physical anthropology, Eugenie Scott's far more qualified than Tour with respect to evolution and the evidence for it. Finally, evolution isn't rejected by really anyone within the relevant scientific disciplines. Personal biases aside, greater than 95% accept it as demonstrated. Questioning everything, though, is a built in feature of science and should be encouraged. Of course, I don't think that's quite the point you were trying to make.
Just because a basket load of acronymed idiots might agree that the ocean is sky-blue-pink with polka-dots does not mean that it really is. Evolution is the last bastion of those who refuse to think for themselves.
William Maddock So which is it? Sounds like you and the OP are making contradictory claims in support of the same conclusion. Couldn't be that you're predisposed to reject evolution irrespective of the evidence, could it? No, nobody could be *that* foolish.... /sarcasm
Hyperpandas When people sense that they are in danger of losing a debate they have a tendency to reduce to insult and intimidation. They do that because they see it as the only way that they can silence what they do not want to hear. These days, unfortunately, they also do not want anyone else to hear, and their only method of accomplishing their goal is to shout down and silence what they hate. What is it that Jesus said? “The disciple is not better than his master.” “If they hate you, know that they have first hated Me.” It is not because of evidence that they deny God, because the evidence actually proves God, and not their philosophical rejection of Him. It is evidence from scientific research that supports the logic that proves our case. Back in the middle of the 20th Century evidence was gathered that supported the Big Bang theory. Ever since, all of the evidence of Cosmology has very stubbornly continued to support the Big Bang. In fact, way back the 1960’s, before he fell ill, Dr. Steven Hawking solved the Field equations of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, indicating that the universe began in what has been called both “the singularity” and “a zero-volume space”. Dr. Steven C. Meyer then asks his students, “How much stuff can you fit in a zero volume space?” The answer, of course, is “Nothing.” According to science’s own research, then, “nothing” is the amount of physical stuff that began the universe. Where there is no physical stuff, there is also no way of measuring it, because you cannot measure what does not exist. There were no dimensions and no passage of time, because there was nothing for them to measure, and where there is nothing to measure there is no measurement. So, there was no space and there was no time. Since there was nothing physical to cause it, that cause had to be non-physical. Christians more often refer to such a cause as spiritual. There is nothing physical about the spiritual. Some people think that that disqualifies it as a cause of the physical, but don’t panic. There is also nothing physical about your mind, but it controls your body, which is physical. If you can do it without even thinking about it, so can God. The universe was created, so time and space also were created. The creator of something is not bound by what it creates, but what is created is bound by its creator. That means that the creator of the universe is not bound by the universe, the creator of time is not bound by time, and the creator of space is not bound by space. Those are bound by their creator. As to time and space, that could be stated as meaning that time and space are contained within their creator. Since they are contained within their creator that means that at any point of them, their creator is present. Another way of saying that is that as regards time, its cause is eternal, and as to space, its cause is omnipresent. No sane person would ever seriously argue that the workings of the universe cannot be figured out, since that quest has been getting successfully pursued ever since earthly civilization began. They might say that it is a testimony to the ingenuity of man, but it is also a testimony to the rationality of the universe. The rationality of the universe is another way of saying that it is orderly as opposed to random; it follows rules, rules that can be discerned, and rules do not arise on their own. They have a creator, or ruler, and rulers such as these have a mind; they are intelligent. Since the universe has time, space and order, that means that its cause is eternal, omnipresent, and intelligent. Intelligent means that it is aware. Since it is aware at all times and in all places, that means that it is all-knowing. Christians usually refer to that as omniscient. So, the cause of the universe is eternal, omnipresent, and omniscient. I don’t know about you, but to me, that sounds an awful lot like God. The people who claim that science proves there is no God do not know science. We just used science-and used it accurately-to prove that God must exist. In fact, the evidence gathered by science requires God to exist in order for that evidence to make any sense at all. Those who argue otherwise are not arguing from scientific evidence, but from a pre-existing investment in a philosophy that denies the existence of God. The only people who invest in a philosophy are people who want to invest in it, and the only motive for wanting to invest in it is that it tells you what you want to hear. Those who argue that science proves there is no God do not want there to be a God.
William Maddock Lol, you were intimidated by my comment? And why have you launched into a rather clumsy cosmological argument for a god when we were talking about evolution? You're kind of proving my point about you being predisposed to deny evolution if you think your last comment has anything to do with your first.
Eugenie Scott is like garlic to vampires for creationists. I can just see them covering their faces as they start to smoke screaming Ahhh! Facts!! Stop it!! Ahhh!!
She is generally a breath of fresh air to Creationists because she is almost always honest in what she presents. However, Steve Meyers caught her in a lie when she answered, in an interview, that there were no peer-reviewed papers on Intelligent Design. Meyers knew that his paper in the Smithsonian Proceedings was peer reviewed, and she certainly knew so too. Another good thing about her is that she recognizes the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism when several at the NCSE have lost sight of the distinction.
Brian Esposito Sternberg had it peer reviewed and "Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed [Sternberg] in an email message on August 25th, 2004, 'Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article].' "
At 29:38 the lady is talking about rocks that were only 200 years old and the evolution dating said the rock was 3 billion years old? That is a big mistake and even if they are trying to find ways to fix these mistakes, why couldn't many other dates also be wrong? What is the olivine that she is talking about I wonder? Didn't the scientists know that this olivine which is in a big chunk should not have been dated with the rest, and why does the olivine rock date 3 billion years anyway? What if there is olivine ground up in many other rocks giving wrong dates? So I don't see how this dating can be trusted plus with dinosaurs dated millions and millions of years old, and then they find soft tissue which is supposed to be impossible, such as blood vessels and red blood cells and even dna lasting millions and millions of years, it seems a lot of the dating might be wrong.
Creationists don't reject science. We LOVE science. We reject evolution BECAUSE science refutes it. There is no known mechanism to create the genetic information needed to create a new organ system or body plan. the U.S. has the least govt. control and hence people that are still allowed to think. However, that is changing.
You can't take me seriously because you can't face facts. Evolution is dead. Abiogenesis is dead. However, no one wants to own up to it because they can not bear the alternative.
